Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38271184›Full record

ArticleHuman molecular genetics2024

Challenges and approaches to calibrating patient phenotype as evidence for cancer gene variant classification under ACMG/AMP guidelines.

Cristina Fortuno, Kyriaki Michailidou, Michael Parsons, Jill S Dolinsky, Tina Pesaran, Amal Yussuf, Jessica L Mester, Kathleen S Hruska, Susan Hiraki, Robert O'Connor and 6 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Human molecular genetics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors.

Cristina FortunoPopulation Health Program, QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Herston, QLD 4006, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-1970-9912
Kyriaki MichailidouBiostatistics Unit, The Cyprus Institute of Neurology and Genetics, Nicosia 2371, Cyprus.
Michael ParsonsPopulation Health Program, QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Herston, QLD 4006, Australia.
Jill S DolinskyAmbry Genetics, Aliso Viejo, CA 92656, United States.
Tina PesaranAmbry Genetics, Aliso Viejo, CA 92656, United States.
Amal YussufAmbry Genetics, Aliso Viejo, CA 92656, United States.
Jessica L MesterGeneDx, Gaithersburg, MD 20877, United States.
Kathleen S HruskaGeneDx, Gaithersburg, MD 20877, United States.
Susan HirakiGeneDx, Gaithersburg, MD 20877, United States.
Robert O'ConnorColor Genomics, Inc., Burlingame, CA 94010, United States.
Raymond C ChanColor Genomics, Inc., Burlingame, CA 94010, United States.
Serra KimColor Genomics, Inc., Burlingame, CA 94010, United States.
Sean V TavtigianHuntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, United States.
David GoldgarHuntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, United States.
Paul A JamesParkville Familial Cancer Centre, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre and Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, VIC 3052, Australia.
Amanda B SpurdlePopulation Health Program, QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Herston, QLD 4006, Australia.

Funding

Upgrading rigor and efficiency of germline cancer gene variant classification for the 2020sR01CA264971 · NCI · UTAH STATE HIGHER EDUCATION SYSTEM--UNIVERSITY OF UTAH · PI Sean Vahram Tavtigian · 2022 to 2026
$2.9M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA264971NIH HHS R01 CA264971
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Since first publication of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics/Association for Medical Pathology (ACMG/AMP) variant classification guidelines, additional recommendations for application of certain criteria have been released (https://clinicalgenome.org/docs/), to improve their application in the diagnostic setting. However, none have addressed use of the PS4 and PP4 criteria, capturing patient presentation as evidence towards pathogenicity. Application of PS4 can be done through traditional case-control studies, or "proband counting" within or across clinical testing cohorts. Review of the existing PS4 and PP4 specifications for Hereditary Cancer Gene Variant Curation Expert Panels revealed substantial differences in the approach to defining specifications. Using BRCA1, BRCA2 and TP53 as exemplar genes, we calibrated different methods proposed for applying the "PS4 proband counting" criterion. For each approach, we considered limitations, non-independence with other ACMG/AMP criteria, broader applicability, and variability in results for different datasets. Our findings highlight inherent overlap of proband-counting methods with ACMG/AMP frequency codes, and the importance of calibration to derive dataset-specific code weights that can account for potential between-dataset differences in ascertainment and other factors. Our work emphasizes the advantages and generalizability of logistic regression analysis over simple proband-counting approaches to empirically determine the relative predictive capacity and weight of various personal clinical features in the context of multigene panel testing, for improved variant interpretation. We also provide a general protocol, including instructions for data formatting and a web-server for analysis of personal history parameters, to facilitate dataset-specific calibration analyses required to use such data for germline variant classification.

Indexed as

Genetic VariationNeoplasmsGenes, NeoplasmGenetic TestingGenome, HumanHumansPhenotypeACMG PS4cancer genegermline variant classificationlogistic regressionproband counting

Identifiers

PMID38271184
PMCPMC11000651

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.